>> i do too militarily. strategic partnership agreement is close to being concluded? >> we have not begun the final negotiations on the strategic partnership agreement yet sir. we think it is close. >> thank you. and i'd like to especially thank the administration for their efforts in this, but i would also like to thank my two colleagues, senator lieberman and senator graham in their consistent efforts to get this done. there is no american that knows more about the detainee issue than senator graham does, and i am very grateful for his continued participation in the whole detainee issue and senator lieberman's consistent and many times unpopular position on this issue.

the strategic partnership agreement seems to me is more important than just an agreement about detainees and about night raids. it means that there is a commitment on the part of the united states to remain a present force in afghanistan for the foreseeable future. do you view it having that degree of importance? >> it may be one of the most important outcomes of the recent years of this conflict, sir. an crocker are working very hard on are working very hard. >> dr. miller, do you share that view? >> senator mccain, yes, i do. i think it is critically strategic partnership, the president has stated clearly that we have an enduring commitment to afghanistan and the strategic partnership will abconcrete

substantiation of that. there will be a lot of work to do after that but it's a critical milestone. >> and you are encouraged by recent progress? >> yes, sir. understanding the tumultuous last couple of months with the events we talked about with i'm very encouraged by recent progress and encouraged by the progress i saw on the ground when i was there for a week, two weeks ago. >> general allen, do you believe that the two remaining major obstacles to success in afghanistan are corruption in the karzai government and continued sanctuary and support for the taliban by pakistan? >> sir, may i hear that again. >> the two remaining major obstacles to success in afghanistan. the corruption issue in the karzai government and the pakistani sanctuary and isi assistance to the taliban. >> i do. >> have you seen any change in those two major obstacles?

>> sir, i think we've done good work with the afghan government of late. there have been a number of initiatives in partnership with president karzai and his government. he has appointed a presidential executive commission headed by minister of finance to partner with isaf and with the international community on the issues of reclaimingborders, inland customs depots. that's an important move. >> have you seen any change in the isi relationship with the taliban -- in the haqqani network? >> i have not sir. >> general, as you know, the american people are war weary. public opinion polls show that most americans want out of afghanistan and an end to this decade-long conflict, more than a decade. and more than 1,000 lives.

if you had a chance to speak to the american people about what's at stake here and your view of this conflict, what would you say to them? >> first thing i would do is to thank them for their incredible support to the men and women and to the campaign and to our services who have come together in afghanistan to accomplish the mission which is to deny al qaeda safe havens and to deny al qaeda the opportunity or taliban, the opportunity to overthrow the government of afghanistan. i would thank them for that. that's the first thing i would say. i would say to them that the investment in this campaign by the united states and its 49 coalition partners has been to shape that insjtcy and build an afghan security force capability which could ultimately take over the campaign, the counterinsurgency campaign, to

become the defeat mechanism of the enemy. that is occurring and i would point to that as an example of the success, as an example of the successful outcome of the investment that has been made by this country and the other countries of the coalition, ultimately to deny the taliban the opportunity to ever overthrow this government again and to permit afghanistan to sink once again into the darkness of the taliban which could permit it to welcome al qaeda back in, they have made no effort to separate themselves from al qaeda, and if that were to happen, afghanistan could once again become a launching pad for international terrorism. i think the progress that has been made at a societal level, the progress made within the afghan national security forces to push back the momentum of the taliban and deny al qaeda safe havens has been remarkable and it has come from the sacrifices of the population of this country and the other 49 states that are part of isaf. i would thank them for that sacrifice. >> i thank you, general, and i

hope that the american people could hear those words exactly as you articulated them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator reid is next. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. miller for your thoughtful testimony. general allen, thank you for your traordinary service, you and your family. thank you also for one of the most compelling statements i've heard here which reflects sincerely your profound appreciation and dedication to the men and women you lead. thank you very much. i'm going to oversimplify i think what your operational challenges are but they seem to be two. one is to be able to embed nato advisers with afghani forces as they take the lead. and seconds, be able to operate 24/7, in fact, be able to particularly operate in the evenings and night when we have tactical and technical advantages. both of those issues have been

shaken by incidents and some of the discussions the last few weeks. with respect to the night raids. there has been some discussion of authorizing raids through afghani judicial procedures and warrants and which to me would seriously impede your ability, nato's ability and the afghan military force ability to operate. is that something that's being seriously considered? would it undermine our ability to operate? >> senator, it's my intention with respect to the outcome of those negotiations that memorandum of understanding on night operations, that we not impede the contributions of those night operations make every single day in the battle space. just as we are accomplishing transition in other areas, it is

appropriate as time goes on and as afghans take over greater lead in its security operations, that we would acknowledge the afghan constitution in that process as well. you recall in iraq we ultimately went to a warrant-based system. that system was successful. it was successful because we were able to streamline the judicial process in ways that supported the operations rather than impeded the operations. sir, we're just beginning the negotiations in this regard and as you might imagine they are pretty sensitive at this point. but i assure you that we'll get this right, we won't get it fast, and the outcome will be night operations that continue to contribute to this campaign with afghans deeply in the process, which is appropriate, ultimately to the march toward sovereignty that we have undertaken, sir. >> let me for a bit of context, is it accurate to say that the haqqani network, the taliban

operate frequently at night, conduct attacks against nato operations at night, in fact, would not be inhibited by potential impositions, does that happen today? >> haqqanis are operating 24 hours a day. night operations are particularly valuable in neutralizing their networks and the other networks, al qaeda, taliban. >> let me turn to another issue embedding nato forces more precisely, nato forces. has that given you cause to rethink how you'll do this? not only in terms of the safety of nato personnel but the receptiveness of the afghani security forces and local populations to small groups of nato personnel operating with

battalions and companies of the afghani national army. >> it is clearly a challenge, senator. you are correct in how you phrased that question. i'm going to watch this very closely. we've taken a lot of measures, obviously, to reduce the what are known as green on blue attacks, i can go into greater detail should you desire. but it is something over which i'm significantly concerned. we're going to watch it closely. i take heart in the success of the afghan local police as potentially a model and indicator of how this will unfold. across afghanistan there are multiple, tens of afghan local police, garrison, in which our special operators are embedded across the country. in all of those, over 12,000 local police, there has yet to be an attack on one of our green ba rays, seals or marines. if it's done right and i believe we will do this correctly,

obviously, i think that we can continue the process of embedding our security force platforms and advisers into these formations, taking, undertaking the measures for protection that we now have under way. >> thank you. dr. miller, senator mccain in asking general allen about some of the major challenges including corruption and other factors which might be generally put under the category of governance, raises a fundamental issue. we could have tactical success on the ground but if the governance fails, then most experts, most suggest that in the end we will not be successful. one of the tensions in afghanistan historically in the last 10 years has been between essential government and

decentralized traditions, et cetera. are you exploring ways in which without profound constitutional changes that the government can be more effectively decentralized? the afghanis can decide to more effectively decentralize, because again, from my perspective, that might be one way to facilitate more effective governance or at least to accept the reality on the ground of what's happening. any comments? >> senator reed, let me answer in two parts. the first is to say that the central government is going to remain critical to the success of afghanistan over time. and that the work that is under way and needs to continue to deal with minimizing corruption and providing stronger institutions, will be vital and sir, there is indicated and as

senator mccain indicated there is much work to do and we'll continue to work on institution building, true from the department of defense, and also increasing hi true from other agencies as we look to strengthen them over time. sir, at the same time, the second point would be that what i observed when i was there two weeks ago was the importance of district level and sometimes and village level, leadership. the elders of a village, the role of the mosque, and the important role for districts and provinces of the governors and chiefs of police so. i think that what we're looking at for success is a model that includes a strong government in kabul where kcorruption is brought down and has resources that are able to provide not just for its own protection but provide in part an avenue of

resources back down to the local levels. and at the same time continue to build that from the grass roots if you will, at the village and district level, build strong governance. i think it's not either or. i think it's a both. >> thank you, gentlemen. my time's expired. >> thanks, senator reed. next is senator chambliss. >> first of all, thanks for your service, general allen, particularly you. you picked up right where general petraeus left off and we thank you for that, the kind of leadership that you provided over there and please express to those troops that serve under you how much we appreciate their service. >> i will do that. thank you. >> following up on what senator reed was talking about with respect to night raids, having been in afghanistan a number of times, having visited with some of those troops, particularly

afghan troops who are carrying out the night raids in a very professional way and in a way which has minimized even the risk of civilian casualties, it's pretty important, pretty important part of our process as we move towards ultimately achieving the victory there. i'm really concerned about this potential shift to the warrant-based approach. general allen, will that shift increase the possibility of civilian casualties and our ability to fix and finish the target. >> an important question, sir. and i believe, senator, that if we do this right, it will not impede either the operations nor will it increase civilian casualties. as i presume you understand we're at about 2400 operation, special operations a year.

this last year we had about 2200 night operations. of those 2200 or so night operations, 90% of them we didn't fire a shot. on more than 50% of them we got the targeted individual and 30% more we got the next associate of that individual as well. so 83%, roughly, of the night operations we got either the primary target or an associate. in all of those night operations, even with 10% where we fired a shot, there was less than 1.5% civilian casualties. i don't diminish any civilian casualties by reducing it to a percentage point. every one of those is tragic. but after 9200 night operations, 27, 27 people were killed or wounded in night operations,

that would argue for the power of night operations preserving life and reducing civilian casualties in all other kinds of operations, than necessarily being a risk of creating additional civilian casualties. that's in my mind, sir, as we go through the process of negotiating an outcome for the afghanization if you will of night operations. >> those are very impressive statistics, and unfortunately they are not reported in the afghan press. they seem to only highlight the negative aspects which as you just stated are very, very few. with regard to afghan taliban reconciliation, the administration made a conscious decision to overtly seek reconciliation with the taliban. and part of that action on the part of the administration has been to offer up five guantanamo detainees who are taliban who have been identified by the taliban themselves as the five

that they would like to have released as a show of good faith according to the administration, that the united states is serious about negotiations regarding reconciliation. personally i'm offended by any negotiations with terrorists who are killing our men and women, but beside that, i'm really offended that there would be some conversation about releasing five of the meanest nastiest killers in the world to the taliban as a show of good faith, particularly to have them housed in the country where our experience has not been very good and their retaining the individuals that have been previously released to them. now, i understand that the negotiations now, dr. miller, have moved to the department of defense from the state department, i think that's a wise decision.

i understand also from comments made by secretary panetta yesterday, that these transfers are now on hold because, as some of us suspected, it now -- the administration does not have confidence that the qatar government is going to be capable to living up to the requirements we put on them for these five individuals. my question to both of you is, do you think that the release of these five individuals to the taliban, even under the conditions that are being discussed, is a wise move when you consider the rate of recidivism that we know to be about 27%, and when we particularly know that these are five leaders of the taliban who have previously been declared to be too dangerous to be released and are likely to re-enter the fight. dr. miller, i would like your comments, please. >> senator, the department of

defense and secretary panetta support process of reconciliation or efforts to support an afghan-led afghan-le reconciliation. we are doing that with eyes wide opening and understanding the nature of the individuals that are involved. working closely with the state department and others to see how we can assist the afghans. let me say explicitly, sir, that no decisions have been made on the possible transfer of detainees. and as you know the law requires the secretary of defense weather the concurrence of the secretary of state, to certify to congress that the necessary security measures and assurances are in place before any transfer can occur. and we are in absolute agreement that these assurances must be in place before anything can go forward. but as i said, no decision to do so has been taken. >> general allen, do you have any comment on that issue?

>> i think as long as, sir, the secretary, in accordance with law, as dr. miller said, can certify that they will not become recidivists, there is the break potentially on the process. and i support the secretary in that regard, sir. >> general allen, in previous hearings you have noted that one of the greatest shortages you saw in our fight in afghanistan were, and i quote, air assets, both rotary and fixed wing and an increased requirement for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms equipped with signals, intelligence, and full-motion video. you also remarked that intelligence analysts and associated systems were also necessary to properly exploit the data collected. do you believe that since we last had a conversation about this that you're getting the kind of support from dod in terms of acquiring those assets? >> we're in better shape than we were before, senator.

the resources that have been made available through the air force and from the congress have helped to improve that situation, sir. to include even the arrival of hyperspectral capabilities in the theater has been very helpful to us, and that arrival is most welcome. >> great. thanks again for your commitment and for the commitment of your family. >> thank you, sir. >> thanks, senator chambliss. i'm privileged to be occupying the chair while senator leaven had to go to the floor. i just take the liberty to say very briefly that i share senator chambliss' concern about the detainees and i appreciate the consideration you've given. personally, i know the taliban has said in these negotiations this is a way to build trust. it's much too much too soon to give up five of these detainees. there are other things we have to do before we get to that point to build up the trust.

and frankly, i don't know how secretary panetta could ever certify that these five would not be recidivists. so personally i hope he never does. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general allen and secretary miller, for your testimony today, for being here. and general allen, please take our appreciation back to the men and women in uniform and the civilians there working together to help sol the very, very challenging problem that we all face. one of the things that we've struggled with as a country and as individuals and as government and military is trying to outline progress and put it into a metric program to understand whether we're 25% toward our goal or 50%, because it's too easy to talk about winning or losing unless there's some

definition and some metric associated with that. you can -- one person's success is another person's loss. so we established some time ago the benchmarks in afghanistan. and i'm interested in both of your analyses here of our efforts in achieving those benchmarks. last october, the report on progress towards security and stability in afghanistan revealed that if the afghan army units assess, only 36% were ae fk tif independently or with purely advisory support. and likewise only 44% of the afghan police assessed were similarly effective. could you give us your -- at least a benchmark thought about how that direction is going? are we -- are we going from 36%

to 40% or 50% for army and up from 44% with afghan police? >> sir, let me -- let me offer you a couple of comments here. but i would like to take the question so i can give you the level of specificity that your question deserves. >> yes. >> in january of 2011, there were 155 ratable battalion-sized units in afghanistan. 101 of those were rated at effective with advisers or effective with assistants. none of them were rated as independent at that point with advisers. a year later, there are 168 candac-sized units, battalion-sized units, and we've gone from 121 to 127 rated in the top three and 11 rated independent with advisers. so in just a year there has been

significant improvement. and it's not a linear improvement. it's really an improvement that gains capability over time in a nonlinear way. there have been similar improvements with the police, as well. but let me take that question and make sure i get back to you with the level of specificity that it deserves, sir. >> secretary miller, are you satisfied that progress and improveme improvement, talking about successful and failing, but there's been progress and improvement in these areas of benchmarks that we've established? i know they've been worked on with the secretary of state as well as the secretary of defense. >> senator nelson, yes, i am satisfied that we're making progress. i know that there will always be times when we slip back and have to regain progress that we've made before. but as general allen said, what we've seen as very significant progress and we will provide detailed numbers as you've requested, sir. >> and let me also deal with the

issue of the numbers of personnel that are now in the afghan national security force, both as to the present number and the future number, because we can't always evaluate everything simply on the basis of the cost. i think we always have to know what the cost is. can you tell me how much it cost the u.s. taxpayers to support the current afghan national security force? i guess let me ask you, secretary miller. >> sir, let me pull up the number. my recollection is that we were -- the request for fy-12 was a little over $11 billion and that we've requested about $5.8 billion? >> roughly for 13. >> for fy-13. if you look at that cost compared to -- compared to the overall cost of the conflict, it is relatively small. >> i know, general, that you don't evaluate the needs simply based on what the cost is, but

we can't ignore cost, and i appreciate that fact that you're not saying, well, we've got -- we have to have the best afghan national forces money can buy with money that we can afford. but it is a factor for the american people to be aware of what the true financial costs and financial burden given the fact that the debt continues to rise and we're trying to control a deficit and at the same time right size the budget to take care of our national security needs as well. secretary miller, do you agree with that? >> senator nelson, yes, i do. >> okay. i always appreciate short, crisp answers when possible. in looking toward alternatives to violence, it's my understanding that insurgents may be looking toward

alternatives to violence. at the same time, the taliban seems to be threatening more violence and more sensational violence. is there, apart from the sensationalism right now of the threats following the koran and the unfortunate slaying of civilians, is there truly a bona fide effort at trying to find alternatives to violence among the insurgency? general? >> senator nelson, that's a -- that's a really important question because it gets at the ability to decompose the insurgency. and it is pursuing the process of reintegration. in any spectrum of peacemaking that would occur in a counterinsurgency, on the one end you would have the political agreement that would be called reconciliation, and on the other end you would have the individual opportunity for the